01-20-2017, 05:34 PM
(01-20-2017, 03:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(01-20-2017, 02:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-20-2017, 01:56 PM)David Horn Wrote:(01-20-2017, 03:15 AM)Galen Wrote: You like authoritarians when they think like you which is very revealing because saddling everyone with a huge bureaucracy is so liberating.
Why is private power acceptable to libertarians, but public power is not?
Because public power is held by a monopoly: the government can be as unreasonable as it wants, and the individual can do nothing about it.
Private power is normally held by competing providers; if one provider is unreasonable, the individual can switch to a different provider.
Not if the providers are in a virtual monopoly; choices are limited. The individual can do nothing about the decisions of the owners, and (s)he has no voice and no vote.
Agreed, which is why it's crucial to prevent government from facilitating monopolies by creating barriers to the entry of new competitors through regulatory requirements and such. Some antitrust enforcement may also be required. For natural monopolies, regulation may be appropriate, or even government supply where usage cannot reasonably be metered and charged. However, natural monopolies are very much the exception rather than the rule.
Quote:In the government, the public is the boss and the people have a voice and a vote. The major task is to make sure government is controlled by the people, and not the bosses. If this is done, then the government's only boss is the people. It belongs to them.
"The people" are not monolithic. What you describe, even in a democracy, is a recipe for dictatorship of the majority. You may be fine with that when you are in the majority, but I bet you wouldn't be so happy with a government controlled by the religious right and willing to impose their religion on you.